it's going to be on of those threads; I almost wosh the world ended saturday.

_____________________________

Eddie: "Weve been burgaled" Richie: You may have been, but I have never in my life. As a christian I am so tightly clenched, oh you mean burgaled - - - There were originally five horsemen of the apocalypse. Jack Bauer said he would travel by foot

Matthew Vaughn's not really lived up to the promise he showed in Layer Cake. Fluke maybe?

I dunno. Kick Ass was pretty kick ass.

Seriously ? Each of his film's has been excellently made and been solid in it's completed work, especially Kick Ass which was just superb, his background in production first prior to direction clearly shows.

Ross has also come out with the classic "I think they did a deal with Marvel. Over generous to Thor in return for access to the Avengers set...". Guy should've realised he was never going to look good whinging about reviews of a film his wife wrote.

Johnathan Ross gets to play with the screenwriter's bewbs. His opinion is invalid.

And what boobs they are! True though, Ross is hardly impartial on this one.

To be honest, I'm impressed it's get as many as 3 stars - a second spin off from a trilogy whose coffin was nailed shut by a shit, generic second sequel to two films that were pretty different among superhero films is hardly classic material on paper! Regarding the 3 star rating itself, I've always seen it as a pretty average rating - neither decidedly shit nor especially good.

_____________________________

"Its staring at you in the face Mark, there's only one more sex to try..."

If you think it's more of the same from Empire how have you managed to miss this being brought up and debunked in virtually every 'big' or fanboy movie review thread in the past 5 or more years?

A review is an individual opinion, not a committee 'consensus'. And if the committee 'consensus' didn't agree with what you expect, then you'd still just query that anyway.

The only issue here is the review doesn't meet your expectations of what you think it should be. That isn't the reviews fault, and the reviewer doesn't have to agree with you because we're talking about opinions here. And I emphasise the 'think' because, of course, you're choosing to criticise the review without actually having seen the film.

That's fairly common round here too

I can give a few reasons for Empire's 3* review.

1. The reviewer genuinely didn't think too highly of the film (most likely reason). 2. Its not that good (unlikely giving the other reviews). 3. It was a political decision, specifically referring to the criticism Empire has had on these boards and elsewhere about giving good reviews to their "mates" (ie; Vaughn, Goldman, Pegg, Wright etc). Thus they gave it an average mark to silence that criticism.

In the end the 3* will probably go up to 4* on dvd. Remember they gave Batman Begins 3* on release, only changing it later when they realised how stupidly wrong they were.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts And I looked and behold, a pale horse And his name that sat on him was Death And Hell followed with him.

If you think it's more of the same from Empire how have you managed to miss this being brought up and debunked in virtually every 'big' or fanboy movie review thread in the past 5 or more years?

A review is an individual opinion, not a committee 'consensus'. And if the committee 'consensus' didn't agree with what you expect, then you'd still just query that anyway.

The only issue here is the review doesn't meet your expectations of what you think it should be. That isn't the reviews fault, and the reviewer doesn't have to agree with you because we're talking about opinions here. And I emphasise the 'think' because, of course, you're choosing to criticise the review without actually having seen the film.

That's fairly common round here too

I can give a few reasons for Empire's 3* review.

3. It was a political decision, specifically referring to the criticism Empire has had on these boards and elsewhere about giving good reviews to their "mates" (ie; Vaughn, Goldman, Pegg, Wright etc). Thus they gave it an average mark to silence that criticism.

Except point 3 is also poppycock. Empire have repeatedly stated the review is the reviewer's opinion. Stating otherwise is a possibility is little different to calling them liars and the rubbish about giving good reviews to their 'mates' and undeserved scores to promote their mates' films is libel. See your av.

DVD reviews often (in fact generally if Neth's extensive research to debunk another posters idiot nonsense about this) are done by different people, hence different scores. Or are even done by the same person who's seen more in a film on a rewatch - and we have all dont that. And what they did with another random film - where they foolishly found someone who gave it more than it deserved on DVD - has nothing to do with this other completely nothing to do with that one film.

If you think it's more of the same from Empire how have you managed to miss this being brought up and debunked in virtually every 'big' or fanboy movie review thread in the past 5 or more years?

A review is an individual opinion, not a committee 'consensus'. And if the committee 'consensus' didn't agree with what you expect, then you'd still just query that anyway.

The only issue here is the review doesn't meet your expectations of what you think it should be. That isn't the reviews fault, and the reviewer doesn't have to agree with you because we're talking about opinions here. And I emphasise the 'think' because, of course, you're choosing to criticise the review without actually having seen the film.

That's fairly common round here too

I can give a few reasons for Empire's 3* review.

3. It was a political decision, specifically referring to the criticism Empire has had on these boards and elsewhere about giving good reviews to their "mates" (ie; Vaughn, Goldman, Pegg, Wright etc). Thus they gave it an average mark to silence that criticism.

Except point 3 is also poppycock. Empire have repeatedly stated the review is the reviewer's opinion. Stating otherwise is a possibility is little different to calling them liars and the rubbish about giving good reviews to their 'mates' and undeserved scores to promote their mates' films is libel. See your av.

DVD reviews often (in fact generally if Neth's extensive research to debunk another posters idiot nonsense about this) are done by different people, hence different scores. Or are even done by the same person who's seen more in a film on a rewatch - and we have all dont that. And what they did with another random film - where they foolishly found someone who gave it more than it deserved on DVD - has nothing to do with this other completely nothing to do with that one film.

I didn't say Empire had been giving good reviews to their mates, I merely acknowledged that it has been said on these threads from time to time. And I pointed out that the most likely reason for the 3 * was the reviewers opinion, my post was to try and curb the conspiracies posted above.

And I'm more than aware that dvd reviews are done by different people and therefore different opinion. Although it should be pointed out that the 3* Batman Begins review is nowhere to be found on the website. In fact it has inexplicably shot up to 5* now! Going from 3 to 5* is quite a jump in such a short time considering the dvd review gave it 4* if my memory serves me.

Strange.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts And I looked and behold, a pale horse And his name that sat on him was Death And Hell followed with him.

Not really no. Reviews are generally done after the press screening - so I'd assume for most it's based on a single viewing of the film. And if that's your opinion there was no need for 'possibility no. 3' - was there? Which suggests a 'fiddled' review just as much as the other suggestions. Empire has shown in the past they have little patience for this BS, and rightly so. Tucking it at the bottom with maybes makes little difference. Your post offered 3 options with an entirely new conspiracy theory tucked in there.

And you're still talking about a random film that has nothing to do with this one. If you wish to continue a discussion on Empire reviewing generally then please take it to the existing thread in Empire Magazine.

And I'm more than aware that dvd reviews are done by different people and therefore different opinion. Although it should be pointed out that the 3* Batman Begins review is nowhere to be found on the website. In fact it has inexplicably shot up to 5* now! Going from 3 to 5* is quite a jump in such a short time considering the dvd review gave it 4* if my memory serves me.

Strange.

Batman Begins got 4 stars on release and 5 on DVD, both reviews by Kim Newman I think.

And I'm more than aware that dvd reviews are done by different people and therefore different opinion. Although it should be pointed out that the 3* Batman Begins review is nowhere to be found on the website. In fact it has inexplicably shot up to 5* now! Going from 3 to 5* is quite a jump in such a short time considering the dvd review gave it 4* if my memory serves me.

Strange.

Batman Begins got 4 stars on release and 5 on DVD, both reviews by Kim Newman I think.

No it got 3* on release and 4* on dvd. I still have the Empire issue and my memory is good on this one.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts And I looked and behold, a pale horse And his name that sat on him was Death And Hell followed with him.

It got 3 stars on release. I've got the magazine somewhere in storage but I can't be arsed digging around for it but if someone has a copy to hand then we can clear this up. I distinctly remember a bit of a furore over the score at the time. Unless it was a misprint.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts And I looked and behold, a pale horse And his name that sat on him was Death And Hell followed with him.